modifications to the harbor porpoise take reduction plan - Northeast ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 2-2: Alternative 1 (No Action) - Existing HPTRP Management Measures in the Mid-Atlantic 22
2.2.2 Alternative 2: Closures Alternative 2 would immediately implement closures, in addition to the existing measures of the HPTRP described in Alternative 1 (No Action). Figures 2-3 and 2-4 at the end of this section depict the management areas under Alternative 2 in both New England and the Mid-Atlantic. Members of the HPTRT from environmental and academic organizations opined that the erosion of compliance rates in the nine years since the regulations have been implemented negated the effectiveness of seasonal pinger requirements in New England. They proposed the closure of areas and periods of observed high bycatch in New England. An alternative to implement immediate closures in New England did not receive support and was not fully discussed; therefore, no specific areas were discussed by the HPTRT for this option. Rather, the areas identified here were developed through discussions with the HPTRT for use as “consequence” closure areas, as fully described in Alternative 4 (Preferred). Consequence areas were developed within broader management areas to be closed only as a consequence of two consecutive years of observations of bycatch rates higher than rates expected under high compliance with the pinger requirements. Although closures received broad support as consequence areas, the HPTRT did not discuss immediate closure of these or any other specific areas in New England. In the Mid-Atlantic, the closure area incorporates an area of high bycatch observed outside of current management periods and areas. During their December meeting, the HPTRT reached full consensus, with one abstention, on the creation of the Mudhole South Management Area. This management area is located to the south and east of the current Mudhole Closure Area and includes a February 1 to March 15 closure to large and small mesh gillnet fisheries. Note that when the below areas are not closed, the current HPTRP requirements as described in Alternative 1 would be in effect. New England Closures • Coastal Gulf of Maine Closure Area would be closed in October and November (Figure 2-3). This closure area includes a portion of the current Mid-Coast Management Area, the Massachusetts Bay Management Area, and a new area between the Massachusetts Bay Management Area and the Multispecies Western GOM Closure Area, called the Stellwagen Bank Management Area. This entire new area was proposed for consideration as a “consequence” area to the HPTRT by the states of Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire in their proposal prepared for the January 31, 2008, teleconference (see Appendix F, and Alternative 4 (Preferred)). • Eastern Cape Cod Closure Area would be closed February through April (Figure 2-3). This closure area extends from the “elbow” of Cape Cod at 41º 40’N, east to 69º 30’W, and north to the southern border of the Western GOM Closure Area at 42° 15’ N, west to 70º 00’W, and south to the shoreline of Cape Cod. The area was first proposed to the HPTRT on February 29, 2008, to supplement the “consequence” areas that the HPTRT adopted for southern New England in their December 2007 meeting, as discussed in Alternative 4. 23
Page 1 and 2: MODIFICATIONS TO THE HARBOR PORPOIS
Page 3 and 4: 4.2.1.3 Closed Area Model (CAM)....
Page 5 and 6: Table 4-7: Percent of vessel affect
Page 7 and 8: 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Environmental
Page 9 and 10: The proposed modifications to the H
Page 11 and 12: fishery through the Magnuson-Steven
Page 13 and 14: information if two separate meeting
Page 15 and 16: term “management” in both New E
Page 17 and 18: small mesh nets, although 35% of th
Page 19 and 20: In New England, as Figure 1-2 shows
Page 21 and 22: 2.0 SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATI
Page 23 and 24: Additionally, a provision will be i
Page 25 and 26: � Tie-Downs: Spaced not more than
Page 27: Figure 2-1: Alternative 1 (No Actio
Page 31 and 32: Figure 2-3: Alternative 2 - Immedia
Page 33 and 34: 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Pingers This a
Page 35 and 36: Figure 2-5: Alternative 3 - Expande
Page 37 and 38: 2.2.4 Alternative 4: Preferred Alte
Page 39 and 40: modifications to this FMP are being
Page 41 and 42: takes/mtons of landings, with an an
Page 43 and 44: ycatch rate reflecting compliance w
Page 45 and 46: Figure 2-8: Alternative 4 (Preferre
Page 47 and 48: Figure 2-9: Alternative 4 (Preferre
Page 49 and 50: closure period in 2007. This sugges
Page 51 and 52: Figure 2-10: Alternative 5 - Modifi
Page 53 and 54: Figure 2-12: Alternative 5 - Modifi
Page 55 and 56: South of Cape Hatteras, North Carol
Page 57 and 58: would adversely affect EFH, HAPC, r
Page 59 and 60: 3.2.2.1 Marine Mammals The followin
Page 61 and 62: the region during the peak feeding
Page 63 and 64: Decomposed and/or unexamined animal
Page 65 and 66: esulted in mortality. The other occ
Page 67 and 68: Table 3-4: U.S. Fishery-Related Mor
Page 69 and 70: The coastal morphotype of bottlenos
Page 71 and 72: annual surveys conducted in August
Page 73 and 74: Whitman and Payne, 1990; Barlas, 19
Page 75 and 76: Caribbean. Although the population
Page 77 and 78: Kemp’s ridleys occur primarily in
Page 79 and 80:
3.2.2.3 Protected Fish Two listed s
Page 81 and 82:
The Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery, a
Page 83 and 84:
Table 3-8: Percentage of Northeast
Page 85 and 86:
the largest declines in total reven
Page 87 and 88:
Table 3-14: Average (2002-2006) dis
Page 89 and 90:
Table 4-1: A summary of average byc
Page 91 and 92:
4.1.1.2 Biological Effects of Alter
Page 93 and 94:
Closure Areas in New England, and t
Page 95 and 96:
which both closures and more string
Page 97 and 98:
The predicted bycatch rate ranges f
Page 99 and 100:
calculated based on the estimated b
Page 101 and 102:
Atlantic. If compliance is high, ha
Page 103 and 104:
of the OMA and SMA closure as well
Page 105 and 106:
However, a cost-effectiveness analy
Page 107 and 108:
The recent major changes implemente
Page 109 and 110:
To estimate the cost-effectiveness
Page 111 and 112:
Table 4-5: Percent change in profit
Page 113 and 114:
Table 4-7: Percent of vessel affect
Page 115 and 116:
Alt. 4-Both, Alt. 5-Both), a large
Page 117 and 118:
per year for Alt. 5-Pre to around $
Page 119 and 120:
(Table 4-12). However, for the alte
Page 121 and 122:
4.3 Cumulative Effects Analysis 4.3
Page 123 and 124:
also include disturbances to riveri
Page 125 and 126:
The past, present and reasonably fo
Page 127 and 128:
Carolina through Florida’s east c
Page 129 and 130:
ebuilding programs remained on trac
Page 131 and 132:
Amendment 5 to the Monkfish FMP is
Page 133 and 134:
Herring FMP Herring is an important
Page 135 and 136:
Cumulative Effects on Harbor Porpoi
Page 137 and 138:
effort reduction affects gillnet fi
Page 139 and 140:
Table 4-14: Summary of the effects
Page 141 and 142:
5.0 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW/ FINAL
Page 143 and 144:
The following alternatives are prop
Page 145 and 146:
Under Alternative 1 (No Action), th
Page 147 and 148:
6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act This ac
Page 149 and 150:
upon scientific information, analys
Page 151 and 152:
Proposed Action is significant unde
Page 153 and 154:
Although concerns have been express
Page 155 and 156:
2004). Additionally, the structures
Page 157 and 158:
suggesting the proposed changes to
Page 159 and 160:
Cox, T.M., A.J. Read, D. Swanner, K
Page 161 and 162:
Jacobs, S.R. and J.M. Terhune. 2000
Page 163 and 164:
Prepared by the New England Fishery
Page 165 and 166:
phocoena) bycatch and levels of com
Page 167 and 168:
Swingle, W.M., S.G. Barco, T.D. Pit
Page 169 and 170:
8.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS ALWTRP Atlanti
Page 171 and 172:
9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUT
Page 173 and 174:
David Stevenson Marine Habitat Reso
Page 175 and 176:
Vicki Cornish The Ocean Conservancy
show all

modifications to the harbor porpoise take reduction plan - Northeast ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?